Using Microsoft Teams to Facilitate Asynchronous Online Focus Groups
University of Kentucky
Follow Along!
Project Scope
Introduction
- Project focuses on communication gaps in medical translation.
- Translational research from development to clinical application.
- Understanding stakeholders for improved translational efficacy.
Project Context and Methodological Considerations
- Bench-to-bedside approach in biomedical projects.
- Challenges: projects’ slow progression, critical communicative disconnect.
- Research Questions: Identify communication breakdowns, values affecting projects, and propose instructional interventions.
AOFGs
- Recruited through university listservs and contacts.
- Included 37 faculty, students, and staff.
- Range of identification from clinical to preclinical.
- 3 FGs lasted 4 weeks each.
- Participants expected to contribute 60 minutes per week.
Results & Methodological Observations
Non-Linear Conversational Sequence
- Teams’ non-linear structure: benefits and challenges.
- Lower drop-out rate, flexibility, and participant reflection.
Reflexive Discussion Moderation
- Teams’ precision, flexibility, and coordination for moderators.
- Synthesizing responses and careful reflection.
Nonverbal Cues and Immediacy
- Compensating for lack of nonverbal cues in Teams.
- Use of emojis, tagging, chronemics, and profiles.
Supporting Information
- Richness of data with additional supporting material.
- Enhanced responses through links and external information.
Technical Competence
- Challenges and benefits of technical competence.
- Varying participant familiarity and usability.
“The reason that my participation was so light was due to my lack of familiarity with Microsoft Teams. In addition, I cannot see how virtual meetings are effective. It would have been ideal if just one time the group could have met in person. I have much experience related to translational studies but did not find Teams to be an appropriate application in which to communicate my experiences and conclusions.”
Discussion & Reflection
Overview
“Questions were designed to assess the knowledge transfer gaps that occur between these researchers as projects are moving across translational stages, including where communication breaks down, how opposing beliefs inhibit projects from developing quickly, and how educational interventions might prepare both groups to navigate this process more efficiently in the future.”
Reflection focuses on Teams’ unique influence in 3 areas:
- Interaction
- Interpretation
- Data Management
Interaction
- Discontinuities in conversational flow cause challenges in recreating AOFG interactions.
- What counts as insightful reading (i.e., functional noise).
- Need for strategic planning to leverage platform affordances.
- Encouragement for researchers to know platforms intimately.
Ongoing Interpretation
- Non-linearity as an epistemological benefit.
- Reflexivity and critical thinking during data collection.
- Opportunities for ongoing reflection and qualitative checks.
- Leveraging technological features for richer data.
Data Management
- Teams’ advantage in text-based data.
- Complications in data extrapolation for qualitative analysis.
- Importance of timely data export and reconstruction.
- Must take care to preserve conversational nuances (e.g., group composition).
Conclusion
- Mental roadmap for ensuring effectiveness in this space centers on capitalizing on the resources and affordances offered by the service.
- Can function as an appropriate and valid tool for generating focus group-equivalent insights.
- AOFGs add a viable option to the qualitative methodological toolkit.
